Skip to main content

About your Search

20121224
20130101
STATION
CSPAN 4
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
CSPAN2 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
SFGTV2 1
LANGUAGE
English 13
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
not monopolized social authority. >> you talked extensively about religion in the united states contributing to [inaudible] there is one particular force that think they can inflict their views on this country. they insist said it was the intention of the founding fathers to create a christian equivalent of iran, which i do not think is the case. just because you are religious, it does not make you write all the time. >> get in line with everybody else. with respect, i disagree with what you just said. the religious right, which i obviously am not a member, rose after the religious left in the form of the reverend martin luther king and jesse jackson, etc., etc. the religious right was provoked into politics. the tradition among many protestants was political quietism. and then the supreme court decided that the constitution required that there be at exclusion of religion from the public square in the removal of prayer from schools. deeply offended a great many americans. 40 years ago, next month, they delivered the final provocation for the legitimate political purpose of trying to save the
, very polarizing charter, defines a lot of the basic human value like treatment woman of religion, freedom of expression, so i'm not sure that this is the way forward. however, we would have to take it from there and i think that we treat that constitution try to get another assembly to work, that is not polarizing but establish a consensus among the two divided fraction of the society. right now we have educated middle class on one camp and the so-called islamists and majority of the illiterate part on the other side. that's not the way we expected after the uprising. we need a charter that unifies people that not talking about controversial issues like role, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of worship but talk about science, technology, health care, that is what people compare about. we are going through difficult time that the economy is falling apart, standard and poor downgraded us to a d minus. not in the greatest shape. we need to see a way to move forward. but it is difficult time right now. >> ifill: but if these numbers hold, it looks like pretty sign
. they should be able to train without having religion forced on them. joining me with reaction is executive director for the dr. ron cruise who is a retired army chaplain. good morning to you, sir. >> thank you for having me. >> gretchen: we see a situation in west point. one cadet who was an athiest felt uncomfortable with taking part in involuntary prayer, your reaction. >> it is a shame we don't respect the pluralism. can prayer in west point went back from the founding of our country and we need to respect the religious beliefs of all. those who believe and those who don'tment those who believe have every right to prayer and those who don't believe opt out of the prayer. we need to remember that our founding fathers, george washington upon his appointment as commander-in-chief in the army. one of his first acts was to ask congress to authorize chaplains in every brigade so that religious services could be held. prayer is fundament will in the lives of our soldiers from the beginning of our country and west point would do well to resist efforts by athleast advocates. >> i read a portion
civilization was this? what religion drove them to do this? we keep doing the same things over and over again. many researchers believe these archeo-astronomical sites are very specifically designed where other researchers say it's all coincidence. but not long ago i was up at a place called chimney rock in southwest colorado. and it's over 8,000 feet. and you are up at the southern end ftd rocky mountains and there is this scarp of rock that rises up probably about a thousand feet out of a valley floor and right at the tip of this scarp there are two twin towers of rock. if you get to a certain place on top of this very narrow butte, you can see between these twin towers and there happens to be a great house built between these two towers and every 18.6 years when the moon goes into its northernmost point on the horizon, it rises between those two towers. i was there at the beginning of the last 18.6 year cycle and we stood up there, probably 20 of us, researchers, forest service people, all gathered at the same spot with cameras and huddled -- it was late december at 8,000 feet and we were
religion and politics. in 45 minutes, it looked at the biggest foreign policy events of 2012.
religion and politics with george will. next, a discussion on climate science, politics and global warming. panelists talked about what they think is next for the american west, texas, and north east due to climate change, and attitudes about science from the public. from the commonwealth club of california, this is about an hour. [applause] >> thank you for coming. we are delighted to be here today. welcome to clement won, a conversation about climate energy. burning fossil fuels release [indiscernible] they accepted the the fundamentals of climates science. today, things are different. skeptics are winning the comic communication battle even as temperatures rise and the intensity increases worldwide. over the next hour, we will talk about high school physics and chemistry and how science has committed in the public realm. we are joined by three distinguished scientists. michael mann is the author of "hockey and the current war." and a student from stanford university. >> i should mention that bill is here on very short notice. thank you for stepping in on such short notice you pu
free speech rights in the first amendment. why wouldn't they have the free exercise of religion rights that are also in fact, they start the first amendment as the religious -- i think it's a very important point to make that though hobby lobby has had a tough time taking this to get the preliminary injunction, nothing has been decided on the merits. we actually just won yesterday in 7th court of appeals. our client. corporation. not a religious organization. a regular company. they got the injunction, we have done that for two other of our clients we're 3 for 3. the judges matter in this situation who you get before you this is important precedent. how many companies might have an objection to providing the morning after pill. what justice society to my your said they are not religious organizations. how do you get around that burden? >> i think you get around the burden by saying forever legal purposes this is not a fun term for people and it's true. this is how the law works. when you look at the law really holding here it's the first amendment. really the religious freedom restorat
laws, or is it the view that you should protect the free exercise of religion to the greatest extent possible? we look at these cases and resolve them according to our best view of the law not in terms of a political or conservative agenda. now, there are ways of characterizing us that make a little bit more sense in terms of the work we do. some of my colleagues refer to it here fairly strictly to the text of the statute. others of my colleagues like to look more expansively to what we call the legislative history, the background of the statute or its purpose, and it makes sense to refer to them in those terms. some of us think it's very important be what the framers -- what the framers of the constitution were thinking about at the founding when they drafted it, others of us on the court take a more flexible view and think that the interpretation of the constitution should be informed by evolutionary developments. again, those sorts of things make sense. it's just easer isier, i -- easier, i think, for reporters to say that justice is liberal, and that justice is conservative, and
should extend discrimination law, or you should protect the free exercise of religion to the greatest extent possible? we would get these cases and resolve them in terms of a particular liberal or conservative political agenda. there are ways of characterizing us that make more sense in terms of what we do. some of my colleagues prefer to adhere strictly to that text of the statute. others of my colleagues look more expensively to what we call the legislative history of the background of the statute, or a purpose, and it makes sense to refer to them in those terms. some of those think it is important what the framers of the constitution were thinking about at the founding when they drafted it. others on the court take a more flexible view and think that the interpretation of the constitution should be informed by evolutionary developments. those sorts of things make sense. it is easier, i think, for court reporters to say that justice is liberal and that justice is conservative, and i do not think it is helpful in looking at what we do. >> let me switch to a question about -- more int
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)